Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

[Skylar]

I'm not ignoring anything.

Obvious nonsense. You're ignoring the entire 9th amendment, which explicitly contradicts you. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically make the 9th amendment disappear. Or change the constitution into an exhaustive list of rights.

You're ignoring the fact that marriage isn't a right guaranteed by The Constitution, therefore The Supreme Court can't rule that any law governing marriage is contrary to The Constitution.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear, a right need not be enumerated by the constitution in order to be retained by the people.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter.

 

[80zephyr]

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

The constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Enumeration in the Constitution doesn't define what rights exist or don't exist. As the 9th amendment makes ludicriously clear:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You can ignore the 9th amendment and pretend it doesn't exist. We're not obligated to pretend with you.


So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring the fact that marriage isn't a right guaranteed by The Constitution, therefore The Supreme Court can't rule that any law governing marriage is contrary to The Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Correct. Its like saying that there is a "right" to health care in the constitution.

Mark

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

 

[Skylar]

So.....any of our conservatives want to step up and back Bill's legal logic that McDonald V. Chicago was beyond the Supreme Court's authority and thus doesn't apply?

You'll only be wiping your ass with the 'right to self defense with a firearm'.

Any takers?

Here we see the hypocrisy and ignorance common to most conservatives.

If states have the 'right' to deny gay Americans access to marriage law, then they likewise have the 'right' to deny citizens access to firearms.

Conservatives can't have it both ways – if they advocate state laws prohibiting access to semi-automatic rifles be invalidated because they violate the Second Amendment, then they should also advocate that state laws prohibiting gay Americans access to marriage be invalidated.

Wrong. Bearing arms is in the Constitution. Gay marriage is not.

Mark

The right to self defense with a fire arm is never mentioned.

Yet the court found that such a right existed in McDonald v. Chicago.

And since your fellow conservatives are insisting that the Supreme Court can't rule in a fashion that makes something legal (as that would be making laws), apparently McDonald v. Chicago is invalid.

At least per the conservatives in the thread. So you don't even have the right to self defense with a firearm according to the conservative argument.

Bummer.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not the one that claimed The Constitution can be changed legislatively.

He made no claim the constitution could be amended legislatively. The exchange begins with him quoting the constitution and your not recognizing it as being part of the constitution and thinking it was legislation.

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

Article VI is not 'legislation' – it's the Constitution.

You just claimed that rights can be amended to the Constitution via legislation.

>>>>

 

[Debra K]

no. stupid question. are you fucking kidding me? absolutely not. again, stupid question. it isn'tokay...

polygamy is illegal for all people. the sex of the parties involved does not matter, hence nobody is discriminated against.

Ok but what if polygamy is their religion? Then it's discriminating. Right?

Correct.

But polygamy isn't marriage, it's just living together, having nothing to do with same-sex couples seeking to marry, as the states can't criminalize people 'living in sin.'

Bigamy is another matter altogether – three or more people seeking to marry.

Laws prohibiting bigamy are Constitutional because bigamy is committing fraud upon the state, something the states are at liberty to regulate, and as such religion cannot be used to 'justify' violating valid laws or challenging their constitutionality in court.

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

Yes.

Because there is no law in place in any of the states authorizing persons to enter into a marriage contract written to accommodate two people only, pursuant to state contract law.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter in to a given state's marriage law – law unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

One's rights cannot be 'violated' by being denied access to a law that doesn't exist, regardless his religious beliefs.

Last, bigamy is fraud because it violates the contract one enters into with the state, where in the context of that marriage law you're married to only one person; the fraud occurs when one lies and seeks to deceive the state when attempting to 'marry' a third person while already married to another.

Yes because the state defines it as 2 people. Being devils advocate...is that discriminatory against those whose religion believes a man can have many wives??

Bigamy is prohibited by law. You have to ask the question: Is the law reasonably related to a legitimate government interest?

 

[Skylar]

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring the fact that marriage isn't a right guaranteed by The Constitution, therefore The Supreme Court can't rule that any law governing marriage is contrary to The Constitution.

Correct. Its like saying that there is a "right" to health care in the constitution.

Mark

Incorrect. As the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor is enumeration necessary for a right to be retained by the people. Says who?

Why the 9th amendment, of course:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You're not quite clear on what the constitution is. As you keep treating it as an exhaustive list of rights.

It isn't. Nor ever has been.

 

[80zephyr]

So.....any of our conservatives want to step up and back Bill's legal logic that McDonald V. Chicago was beyond the Supreme Court's authority and thus doesn't apply?

You'll only be wiping your ass with the 'right to self defense with a firearm'.

Any takers?

Here we see the hypocrisy and ignorance common to most conservatives.

If states have the 'right' to deny gay Americans access to marriage law, then they likewise have the 'right' to deny citizens access to firearms.

Conservatives can't have it both ways – if they advocate state laws prohibiting access to semi-automatic rifles be invalidated because they violate the Second Amendment, then they should also advocate that state laws prohibiting gay Americans access to marriage be invalidated.

Wrong. Bearing arms is in the Constitution. Gay marriage is not.

Mark

The right to self defense with a fire arm is never mentioned.

Yet the court found that such a right existed in McDonald v. Chicago.

And since your fellow conservatives are insisting that the Supreme Court can't rule in a fashion that makes something legal (as that would be making laws), apparently McDonald v. Chicago is invalid.

At least per the conservatives in the thread. So you don't even have the right to self defense with a firearm according to the conservative argument.

Bummer.

Lol. The use of a firearm is IMPLICIT in the law.

Your argument is inane

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring the fact that marriage isn't a right guaranteed by The Constitution, therefore The Supreme Court can't rule that any law governing marriage is contrary to The Constitution.

Correct. Its like saying that there is a "right" to health care in the constitution.

Mark

Incorrect. As the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor is enumeration necessary for a right to be retained by the people. Says who?

Why the 9th amendment, of course:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You're not quite clear on what the constitution is. As you keep treating it as an exhaustive list of rights.

It isn't. Nor ever has been.

Then what other rights do we have that are not in the document? According to the left, I should have a RIGHT to food and housing.

Are those "rights" in there as well?

Mark

 

[Skylar]

So.....any of our conservatives want to step up and back Bill's legal logic that McDonald V. Chicago was beyond the Supreme Court's authority and thus doesn't apply?

You'll only be wiping your ass with the 'right to self defense with a firearm'.

Any takers?

Here we see the hypocrisy and ignorance common to most conservatives.

If states have the 'right' to deny gay Americans access to marriage law, then they likewise have the 'right' to deny citizens access to firearms.

Conservatives can't have it both ways – if they advocate state laws prohibiting access to semi-automatic rifles be invalidated because they violate the Second Amendment, then they should also advocate that state laws prohibiting gay Americans access to marriage be invalidated.

Wrong. Bearing arms is in the Constitution. Gay marriage is not.

Mark

The right to self defense with a fire arm is never mentioned.

Yet the court found that such a right existed in McDonald v. Chicago.

And since your fellow conservatives are insisting that the Supreme Court can't rule in a fashion that makes something legal (as that would be making laws), apparently McDonald v. Chicago is invalid.

At least per the conservatives in the thread. So you don't even have the right to self defense with a firearm according to the conservative argument.

Bummer.

Lol. The use of a firearm is IMPLICIT in the law.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the right to self defense with a firearm. Here's the constitution:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Please do so now. You won't be able to find it. Its a right enumerated no where in the constitution. Which doesn't matter in terms of whether or not the right is retained by the people. As enumeration has never been a requirement for a right to be retained by the people.

Your argument is inane

My argument is the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Your willful ignorance of the 9th amendment is inane.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring the fact that marriage isn't a right guaranteed by The Constitution, therefore The Supreme Court can't rule that any law governing marriage is contrary to The Constitution.

Correct. Its like saying that there is a "right" to health care in the constitution.

Mark

Incorrect. As the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor is enumeration necessary for a right to be retained by the people. Says who?

Why the 9th amendment, of course:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You're not quite clear on what the constitution is. As you keep treating it as an exhaustive list of rights.

It isn't. Nor ever has been.

Then what other rights do we have that are not in the document? According to the left, I should have a RIGHT to food and housing.

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

 

[80zephyr]

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

You...you mean Dred Scott is still the law of the land? I had no idea.....

Mark

 

[Skylar]

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

You...you mean Dred Scott is still the law of the land? I had no idea.....

Mark

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

If you had no idea, then clearly you haven't been keeping up. As this happened well before you were born. Or your grandparents were born.

 

[80zephyr]

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

You...you mean Dred Scott is still the law of the land? I had no idea.....

Mark

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

If you had no idea, then clearly you haven't been keeping up. As this happened well before you were born. Or your grandparents were born.

Can't happen. Clayton says case law rules.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

You...you mean Dred Scott is still the law of the land? I had no idea.....

Mark

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

If you had no idea, then clearly you haven't been keeping up. As this happened well before you were born. Or your grandparents were born.

Can't happen. Clayton says case law rules.

Mark

There's plenty of caselaw surrounding the 13th and 14th amendments. You really don't seem to know much about what we're discussing, do you?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring the fact that marriage isn't a right guaranteed by The Constitution, therefore The Supreme Court can't rule that any law governing marriage is contrary to The Constitution.

Correct. Its like saying that there is a "right" to health care in the constitution.

Mark

Incorrect. As the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor is enumeration necessary for a right to be retained by the people. Says who?

Why the 9th amendment, of course:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You're not quite clear on what the constitution is. As you keep treating it as an exhaustive list of rights.

It isn't. Nor ever has been.

Then what other rights do we have that are not in the document? According to the left, I should have a RIGHT to food and housing.

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

 

[80zephyr]

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

You...you mean Dred Scott is still the law of the land? I had no idea.....

Mark

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

If you had no idea, then clearly you haven't been keeping up. As this happened well before you were born. Or your grandparents were born.

Can't happen. Clayton says case law rules.

Mark

There's plenty of caselaw surrounding the 13th and 14th amendments. You really don't seem to know much about what we're discussing, do you?

Lol. You do know that when Dred Scott passed, it was CASE LAW and therefore a closed matter. Talk about not knowing....wow.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring the fact that marriage isn't a right guaranteed by The Constitution, therefore The Supreme Court can't rule that any law governing marriage is contrary to The Constitution.

Correct. Its like saying that there is a "right" to health care in the constitution.

Mark

Incorrect. As the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor is enumeration necessary for a right to be retained by the people. Says who?

Why the 9th amendment, of course:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You're not quite clear on what the constitution is. As you keep treating it as an exhaustive list of rights.

It isn't. Nor ever has been.

Then what other rights do we have that are not in the document? According to the left, I should have a RIGHT to food and housing.

The right to privacy, the right to attorney if arrested, the right to marry, the right to self defense with a firearm and many others.

Conservatives as a rule have nothing but disdain for the 9th amendment, much preferring the 10th. As the 9th protects individual liberty. And unless you can shoot it, conservatives generally much prefer the power of the 10th to strip rights away from people.

Thankfully, there's the Supreme Court to prevent that.

In the case of marriage, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply.

Says who? Let me guess.....you again?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

The Supreme Court doesn't use case law to make decisions.

Damn, and you people have nerve to call US ignorant?...lol

 

[Skylar]

It's no 'argument' at all – the courts rule consistently with settled, accepted case law; the courts are not at liberty to 'make up whatever they want.'

You...you mean Dred Scott is still the law of the land? I had no idea.....

Mark

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

If you had no idea, then clearly you haven't been keeping up. As this happened well before you were born. Or your grandparents were born.

Can't happen. Clayton says case law rules.

Mark

There's plenty of caselaw surrounding the 13th and 14th amendments. You really don't seem to know much about what we're discussing, do you?

Lol. You do know that when Dred Scott passed, it was CASE LAW and therefore a closed matter. Talk about not knowing....wow.

Mark

You're very confused. The caselaw around the 13th and 14th amendment didn't happen when Dred Scott was passed. As neither amendment existed at the time. Caselaw surrounding an amendment comes *after* it passes. While it was the 13th and 14th amendment that overturned the Dred Scott decision.

Following the sequence now? Or do we need to continue this remedial history lesson for you.